Why raising speaker cable off the floor?

[Andrew M Ward]

maddog:

Andrew:

According to the dictonary:
Reasonable:
1) Being within the bounds of common sense.
2) Not excessive or extreme; fair.

Science:
1) The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2) Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Well
I think I understand the dictionaries definition of the word "Reasonable" and the word "Science" but thank you for helping me out.

Stef,
For example, there are millions and millions (45% of the US population) that thinks evolution as described by Darwin, as an observation of reasonable science, is not applicable.

In otherwaords accoring to gallup polls taken in 1982, 1991 and 2000 the idea that evolution played no part in human development never drew less than 45% (128 million Americans)

Against the overwhelmingly obvious evidence present in all sorts of fossil records and charted throuout modern scientific animal kingdom study.

Reasonable Science draws only 55% of the popular sentiment in this particular case. Reasonable Science is only reasonable if "you or me" decide it's reasonable based on our reality.

Where do you go from there?

[Andrew M Ward]

Back to Back posts is a forum sin

I am largely misunderstood as it turns out, so I thought I should drop this little bomb to get another ball rolling:

http://mtmt.essortment.com/zenkoanspiritu_rlmp.htm

All this talk about interconnects and how stupid people are who buy expensive ones and that reasonable science (as if that means something) and blind tests and double blind tests solving every query.

and

the idea that a person can be objective (giggle - giggle) brings me to the link above, please just read for five minutes and then stop if you're so inclined.

Five minutes...

then you might see where I’m coming from... And I’m not Buddhist nor Zen I’m just me.

Probably not reasonable probably not double blind test worthy and definitely not objective, because I don’t believe in objectivity, it’s what people say when they really (really really bad) want somebody to believe them.

Just my 2 cents
Andrew M Ward

[Jesse111]

Andrew, there was never a doubt in my mind that you have a good ear for quality equipment. You obviously do have good taste, you own Classe' like I do. Of course, I'm basing that solely on the hard scientific evidence that it was chosen for me by the nether gods of all HIFI.

I've certainly enjoyed our spririted debate. Good conversation when folks can throw it back and forth with a good attitude and take as good as they give. I must admit you had me chuckling a few times. If you're ever near the beach in Wilmington NC look me up. But heed this fair warning, it's going to be a night of blind testing, quantum physics, cognitive core beliefs, voodoo, snake oil and if we're lucky we may just be able to squeeze in a minute or two to actually listen to some music.

By the way, there's no doubt we agree on more than what most folks might have gathered from our conversation. Two roads leading to the same place, my, what a preposterous notion.
Had fun thanks.

[Victor]

Where did that come from? I know this has been a long thread but, I don't remember anybody saying raising cables off the ground was about mechanical vibration.

Perhaps you should look back a few posts. Our friend Scottielee expressed the following

"...my guess is that separating cables from the ground/wall/rack will also reduce vibrations getting to the cables..."

Also why else would someone raise the cables off the floor? Well, Lex here, intimated a few posts back that the ‘levitating’ of the cables has something to do with isolation. Oh, well… Regardless, - what is your take on this matter?

In regards to blind testing for audio gear. Although I have participated with friends in side by side testing for the fun of it at our houses I wouldn't put much stock in blind testing for audio.

What would you put your ‘stock’ in? Do you understand the purpose of a Blind Tests? How else would you introduce a Control Group into the experiment? Consider this; would you buy a new drug that has not been tested with a control group?

I know the sound of my own system very intimately yet, sometimes it takes me weeks of listening before I recognize something I don't like or do like or hear something new.

I take it that you trust your ears, right? Do you trust them more in the morning or is the evening time that your ears are more acutely tuned to the listening experience? How about doing a listening test just after you come home after hearing the firework on the 4th of July? The point I am trying to make is that your ears are not an instrument that anyone can trust, let along you yourself.

Some things can be immediate and startleing like changing a major component or discovering that moving the furniture had an affect on the sound but, most things take awhile to notice and sometimes only after they are taken away.

Your ability to hear is influence by so many events that are always going on around you, that you can never have a base line for anything. Hence, you may like what you hear today and hate it tomorrow with passion, - yet nothing has appreciably changed.

I think in a blind test I would be trying to hard to see if I heard a difference to really be listening.

In a Blind Test you’ll be facing the honesty that our hobby deserves so very much. With all other distractions removed you are left with music only. You eyes and any priory knowledge do not contribute to what you actually hearing, - and so the truth has a chance to emerge.

...regards,
Vic

[Andrew M Ward]

Dude!

I love it!

You are my (antagonist) hero, and challenge my every notion. May the force be with you and what-not. You're darn right I'll look you up, God forbid we listen to music, that might lead to total agreement...than what? 8O


Stay Cool!

[Andrew M Ward]

Victor kicks ass too!

Don't foget Victor in the list of great antagonisits and Stars!

[Jesse111]

Vic Vic Vic, I love you man. May I buy you a freakin drink.
But boy, are you going to pay for those comments when the left wing gets a hold of you buddy. Get ready for a ride. And watch out for that Andrew fella, he's the sneaky one.

[Victor]

Vic Vic Vic, I love you man. May I buy you a freakin drink.
But boy, are you going to pay for those comments when the left wing gets a hold of you buddy. Get ready for a ride. And watch out for that Andrew fella, he's the sneaky one.

Have no fear, - I’ll see them on the barricades!

[Bob]

It has been too many decades since I took logic 101 in college to remember the name of the various false arguements (was there 13? Been a long time and can't remember) but, I know one when I see it:

What would you put your ‘stock’ in? Do you understand the purpose of a Blind Tests? How else would you introduce a Control Group into the experiment? Consider this; would you buy a new drug that has not been tested with a control group?

Do I know what a blind test is, yes. Do I need a Control Group to make a audio decison, no. Would I buy a new drug that has not been tested, no that's why I don't put stock in herbs. However, I would buy a chair that I sat in and found comfortable without a control group or blind test. Same with a car, a house, my pets, food, equipment for my business, audio gear. What do I put stock in? With regards to audio, whatever pleases me.

[AndrewM]

What would you put your ‘stock’ in? Do you understand the purpose of a Blind Tests? How else would you introduce a Control Group into the experiment? Consider this; would you buy a new drug that has not been tested with a control group?

What does drugs have to do with audio? You also realize that most published blind tests are done so poorly from a "science" standpoint that they don't mean much from a pure scientific point of view. And what is even worse than that is how people read the results, just because one blind test proves one thing doesn't mean it applies to all products in a sweeping sense.

Andrew

[Victor]

It has been too many decades since I took logic 101 in college to remember the name of the various false arguements (was there 13? Been a long time and can't remember) but, I know one when I see it:

I am happy that you took logic. Tell me then what are the nessesary and sufficient conditions that must exist for any experiment, such as the Blind Test, to be valid?

Do I know what a blind test is, yes. Do I need a Control Group to make a audio decison, no.

I am not asking you to personally subsribe to the revelations of the Blind Test experiment. Personally you are free to indulge in any logical pursuit, - it is a free country.

Would I buy a new drug that has not been tested, no that's why I don't put stock in herbs.

Hmm…Are you under impression that only herbs are tested in a Blind fashion? For what its worth, Placebos are routinely used to show the effects of real medicine. How is Placebo different from the concept of a Blind Test?

However, I would buy a chair that I sat in and found comfortable without a control group or blind test. Same with a car, a house, my pets, food, equipment for my business, audio gear.

Are you sure? You logic has a flaw here. Blind Test is only required when experiment is conducted. Purchase of a chair, or a car, or a house, or a pet is not done in the context of an experiment.

There is no universal truth to be found as a result of a purchase of any of those items. You simply show preference here. You are not looking for truth. For instance you may like a bungalow, when I prefer a Victorian style house. Blind test is not needed to show who is correct.

What do I put stock in? With regards to audio, whatever pleases me

This is perfectly fine. You comment tells me that you are not looking for truth, but simply you are contending with the preference. And I shall never argue your preferences.

For the record, - an awful truth is that audio is not an art form. It is not a Picasso that you may admire or hate. Audio is electronics and nothing more. It is subject to the merciless laws of physics. It is a 100% measurement and nothing else. Blind Test simply and unequivocally underscores this point.

I am sorry if what I say does not sit well with you, but the truth cannot be stated in any other way.

...regards,
Vic

[Brahma]

Today I lifted up my speaker wires off the floor and couldn't tell any difference. So I conclude with my set-up atleast that the difference is so slight that it is beyond my audable range.

Notwithstanding the debate going on here about testing methodology, from a purely physics point of view a moving current will definately get affected by its surroundings. But my hunch is no human ear is ever likely to hear the difference. :E

[Victor]

What does drugs have to do with audio? You also realize that most published blind tests are done so poorly from a "science" standpoint that they don't mean much from a pure scientific point of view. And what is even worse than that is how people read the results, just because one blind test proves one thing doesn't mean it applies to all products in a sweeping sense.

Andrew,

I am not responsible for the poorly conducted Blind Tests. Although I addressed in my response to Bob some of your concerns, such as a conceptual parallel between Blind Tests and placebo in drug testing, still I simply argue an approach.

Without a Blind Test we are blind kittens, - it is as simple as that.

...regards,
Vic

[AndrewM]

And if a person buys a piece of gear and "hears" a difference, either real or imagined, yet still enjoys their system that much more than before, isn't the end result a positive?

[Jesse111]

And if a person buys a piece of gear and "hears" a difference, either real or imagined, yet still enjoys their system that much more than before, isn't the end result a positive?

Yes it is. And that is what the majority of the audio world does. To a certain degree no doubt we all do that. That statement, is in fact acceptable logic to me because there is no need to prove anything. To me it simply comes down to claims. The claims are frustrating. Leading folks to believe and perhaps buy things based on claims of other folks who fall smack dead center into this statement, and yet claim there is this amazing revealing sonic difference as if it is true fact. I believe so called golden ear reviewers should, at the very least always qualify there statements with "I think I hear" or "I believe I hear". At best, they should show measured support of their claims by instrumentation or blind testing or both. We tend to depend on them for quality guidence but "I believe" they have terribly mislead the public in this regard. Audioholics is the only place I've found that actually uses instrument tests on a regular bases to support claims. And did you see what they did to the Sunfire Theater Grand III? Now that's what I call a review. That kind of review will help all of us from getting taken advantage of. A real public service. If anyone knows of any other factually supported reviewers please let me know. In the end I believe it's the matter of fact sounding statements, after adding a $4000 power cord or lifting cables off the floor, such as the "bottom end tightened up" or "the transparent quality of the speaker began to shine through", that are in fact "positve results" in the vein of Andrew's statement, but lead folks like Stefon, Vic, myself and others to find their statements misleading, a disservice to the industry and feel they should be challenged.

If one lifts one's cables off the floor and finds more transparency, then they should keep them off the floor and enjoy. As for me, I just might dance around with my lovely "reasonably" inexpensive Silver Sonic cables, in the privacy of my own home of course, and be absolutely confident my systems sound has not changed in the least.

PS. We have officially voted Vic as the new president of TCMFBHFAHFSOM.
"The conservative movement for better high fi and having fun spending our money" club.

[Bob]

Thanks for the lessons in truth, Victor.

Premise-Blind testing can help scientists determine the value of a medicine.

Conclusion-Therefore, scientists can determine the value of a peice of audio gear through blind testing.

I beleive this argument is called the extended analogy, or at the very least it is a fallacy of the undistributed middle argument, and of course is false.
One has a objective result, the other a subjective result.

Your belief that audio is 100% science couldn't be anymore false. Your argument is a dicto simpliciter argument stated in the form of a circulus in demonstrando argument, in that you started with a false statement and then made a circular argument to prove the statement. A argument can be made that the building of a piece of audio gear is 100% science but, a science that is not fully understood and full of surprises and accidental discoveries. Plus, more importantly, how a component will affect different individuals is purely subjective.

I don't disregard the idea of a blind test, in fact I bought my cables based on a subjective listening session in which I had no idea what cables were being used, what they looked like, or what they cost. Would the results have been the same on any given day in any given mood? Probably not, but, because the listening experience is subjective it ultimatly becomes more important than measurements. Especially since, when it comes to audio, we don't even know all the parameters that need to be measured or how to measure them in order to come up what one person calls a beautiful noise and another calls a awful noise.

[Andrew M Ward]

A argument can be made that the building of a piece of audio gear is 100% science but, a science that is not fully understood and full of surprises and accidental discoveries.

Ah-Hah!
Agreed, agreed
The Science of electricity is generally a theory. Remember no one has ever personally witnessed an electron. They (if they actually exist) behave in such a way as to be generally understood, but not completely.

Not completely!

Science when mixed with a little un-solvable mystery becomes possibly (just maybe) something more than what is ultimately measurable.

But then again maybe not (but maybe) A little doubt is a good thing.